Posted on 03/02/2005 7:41:51 PM PST by Buggman
Since the Hebrew Christians were not completely removed from Jerusalem until well into the second century, for the first one hundred years, the Church remained very much a part of first-century Judaism, and its leaders stayed involved in many Jewish affairs. There was no immediate split from the synagogue, as evidenced by Jesus’ warning that some synagogues would punish His followers for preaching a different brand of Judaism (Matthew 10:17). We know that this scourging by synagogue leaders was not an abnormal part of normative Judaism since it is mentioned a number of times in early rabbinical literature.[1]
The structure of the local synagogues was carried over directly into the structure of the early Church. A president, deacons, a precentor (song leader), and teachers can all be found in both the synagogue and the early Church. We know from early sources that there were between 394 and 480 synagogues in Jerusalem during the first century, one being located within the precincts of the Temple itself.[2] This is undoubtedly why the early pattern of the Church had its origins in the Jewish synagogue. Note the following similarities between the ancient synagogue and the early Church.
The principle leader of a synagogue was the nasi or president. In the Christian congregation, the leaders were still called president rather than pastor, as late as A.D. 150, by such non-Jewish writers as Justin Martyr.[3] In the synagogue structure, three of these leaders would join together to form a tribunal for judging cases concerning money, theft, immorality, admission of proselytes, laying on of hands, and a host of other things mentioned in the Sanhedrin section of the Mishnah.
These men were known as the “rulers of the synagogue” because they took on the chief care of things, a title mentioned several times in the teachings of Jesus (Mark 5:3 and Luke 8:41). This practice was still in use among the Gentile congregations at Corinth under the apostleship of Paul, where he spoke of the court within the congregation (1 Corinthians 6:1-2).
The nasi was the administrator of the synagogue, and we know that James, the half-brother of Jesus, was the nasi of the early Church at Jerusalem. Early documents such as the Didache suggest that the churches in Asia Minor and Greece treated the Church at Jerusalem with much the same authority as the synagogues did the Sanhedron.[4] [5]
There was also the public minister of the synagogue called a chazen who prayed, preached behind a wooden pulpit, and took care of the general oversight of the reading of the Law and other congregational duties. He did not read the Law, but stood by the one who did, to correct and oversee, ensuring that it was done properly. He selected seven readers each week who were well-educated in the Hebrew Scriptures. The group consisted of one priest, one Levite, and five regular Israelites (Luke 4:16). The terms overseer of the congregation, angel of the church, and minister of the synagogue all referred to this position.[6]
There were also three men known as almoners or parnasin who cared for the poor and distributed alms and were expected to be scholars of the Scriptures. Since they were also known as gabbay tzedikah, it may be from this function that we get the modern term deacon. Some scholars hold that it was from these seven, the president, the ruler, the overseer, the chazen, and the three parnas, that the idea of selecting ”seven good men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom” came about (Acts 6:3). These men were appointed over the business affairs of the Church so the apostles would not have to be distracted from their study of the Scriptures and prayer.
In Jewish literature the question is asked, “Who is a scholar worthy of being appointed Parnas?” The answer is: “He who is asked about a law from any source, and is able to give an answer.”[7] In modern times the Jews use this term to refer to a lay person, who is also called an elder.
Another function in the ancient synagogue was the shaliach, or announcer. From this position we get the term apostle, meaning one who is sent forth to announce the gospel, a role equivalent to that of our modern missionaries. There was also the maggid, a migratory evangelist of the first century who spoke to various congregations, and the batlanim, a scholarly teacher who was either independently wealthy or on some type of support so he would be available to provide the congregation with accurate academics and answers. There had to be at least ten batlanim in every congregation of one hundred and twenty members. There was even a tradition that a synagogue service could not commence without ten men present.[8] Jesus may have been referring to this tradition when He said, ”Where two or three are gathered in My name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20).
Next, there was a zakin, a word meaning “old,” more in the sense of maturity than age. This person provided counsel to the people and was similar to a modern-day pastor or elder. In Judaism, those who had reached the age of forty were considered to have attained understanding, and those who were over fifty were considered worthy to counsel the younger people.[9] The rabbi was a prophet after the manner of the post-exilic prophets of Judaism. He carried the responsibility of reading and preaching the Word and exhorting and edifying the people (1 Corinthians 14:3). There was also the interpreter, known as the meturganim. This was a person skilled in languages who stood by the one reading the Law or teaching in a Bet Midrash (a house of study) to interpret into the lingua franca of that day the Hebrew that was being spoken. The use of an interpreter goes back to the time of Ezra, when the interpreter was said to have added the meaning. The Talmud gives many details of the interpreter’s duties in the synagogue.[10] It is from this concept that we understand Jesus’ words, ”What you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops” (Matthew 10:27, NKJV). This phrase was easily understood by those who were familiar with the system of study in the Bet Midrash, where the teacher would literally speak the message in the interpreter’s ear, who would then shout it out to others, both inside the classroom and out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Rabbi Isidore Epstein, ed. Soncino Talmud, Sanh. 9:6; Yev. 90 (London: Soncino Press, 1948)
[2] Jerusalem Talmud, Meg. 3:1; Ket. 105a; Sot. 7:7, 8; Yoma 7:1 (Chicago University Press, 1990)
[3] Alexander Roberts, ed., Anet-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company), p. 186
[4] Roswell Hitchcock, ed., Didache 8, (Willits, CA: Eastern Orthodox Publishers, 1989), chapters 11-15
[5] Isaac Boyle, trans., Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History 3.25.4 (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974)
[6] John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. II., Rev. 3:1, 7, 14 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publications, 1979), pp. 89-99
[7] Rabbi Isidore Epstein, ed., op. cit., Shab. 114a
[8] Lightfoot, op. cit., p. 89
[9] Philip Blackman, ed., Mishnah, 1 Pet. 5:5; 1 Tim. 5:1; Avot 5:21
[10] Rabbi Isidore Epstein, op. cit., Meg. 4; Maimon. Tephillah, 12; Massecheth Soph. 10.
I hope everyone finds this to be edifying.
Sorry, I left you off the original ping list. You might find this article interesting.
This is an excellent article. Thanks for posting it.
You're most welcome. I'm glad you found it edifying.
It often surprises me when people try to suggest the earliest church was based on a new Christian model. The church in Jerusalem was actually a mixture of two somewhat adversarial groups of Jews...Hebrews and Hellenists. The earliest Christians (including the Christ's Apostles) never denied their Judiasm. Instead, it would be more accurate to state they were Jews who believed the Messianic age had finally arrived. Therefore, it is perfectely logical and historically accurate to state that their churches were closely based on the Jewish model, and that is why they continued to keep the Sabbath and worship at the Temple (among other things).
Thank you for the ping!
Hyam Maccoby, Revolution In Judea. Best for me thus far.
Influence on organizational structure.
Ah, the Wesley Methodist Circuit Rider. ;-)
Thanks for the article.
This was the mystery revealed to Paul (Eph.3)
He rebuked Peter for attempting to go back to the Jewish traditions and separating from Gentiles (Christian brethren) (Gal.2)
Christians began meeting in houses and not synagogues.
So, the question I had driving in this morning was, were these positions based on the Scripture or on Jewish tradition?
Nearly all denominations appeal for their church polity to the New Testament, with about equal right and equal wrong: the Romanists to the primacy of Peter; the Irvingites to the apostles and prophets and evangelists, and the miraculous gifts; the Episcopalians to the bishops, the angels, and James of Jerusalem; the Presbyterians to the presbyters and their identity with the bishops; the Congregationalists to the independence of the local congregations and the absence of centralization. The most that can be said is, that the apostolic age contains fruitful germs for various ecclesiastical organizations subsequently developed, but none of them can claim divine authority except for the gospel ministry, which is common to all. Dean Stanley asserts that no existing church can find any pattern or platform of its government in the first century, and thus strongly contrasts the apostolic and post-apostolic organizations (l.c.): "It is certain that the officers of the apostolical or of any subsequent church, were not part of the original institution of the Founder of our religion; that of Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon; of Metropolitan, Patriarch, and Pope, there is not the shadow of a trace in the four Gospels. It is certain that they arose gradually out of the preexisting institutions either of the Jewish synagogue, or of the Roman empire, or of the Greek municipalities, or under the pressure of local emergencies. It is certain that throughout the first century, and for the first years of the second, that is, through the later chapters of the Acts, the Apostolical Epistles, and the writings of Clement and Hermas. Bishop and Presbyter were convertible terms, and that the body of men so-called were the rulers—so far as any permanent rulers existed—of the early church. It is certain that, as the necessities of the time demanded, first at Jerusalem, then in Asia Minor, the elevation of one Presbyter above the rest by the almost universal law, which even in republics engenders a monarchial element, the word ’Bishop’ gradually changed its meaning, and by the middle of the second century became restricted to the chief Presbyter of the locality. It is certain that in no instance were the apostles called ’Bishops’ in any other sense than they were equally called ’Presbyters’ and ’Deacons.’ It is certain that in no instance before the beginning of the third century the title or function of the Pagan or Jewish priesthood is applied to the Christian pastors .... It is as sure that nothing like modern Episcopacy existed before the close of the first century as it is that nothing like modern Presbyterianism existed after the beginning of the second. That which was once the Gordian knot of theologians has at least in this instance been untied, not by the sword of persecution, but by the patient unravelment of scholarships."Excerpt from HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCHPhilip Schaff.
The structure of the local synagogues was carried over directly into the structure of the early Church. A president, deacons, a precentor (song leader), and teachers can all be found in both the synagogue and the early Church.
It's interesteing that Schaff makes the following claim.
As every Jewish synagogue was ruled by elders, it was very natural that every Jewish Christian congregation should at once adopt this form of government; this may be the reason why the writer of the Acts finds it unnecessary to give an account of the origin; while he reports the origin of the deaconate which arose from a special emergency and had no precise analogy in the organization of the synagogue.
Does anyone have any additional information on the diaconate wrt the Jewish synagogue?
Does your book have an organizational chart showing the above as a graphic?
This happened for a time, but it became quite obvious that as the claims of Messiah Jesus were advanced among the Jewish people, and as gentiles were now being included as full members of the church with all the rights and privileges, this "accomodation" within the Jewish synagogue structure could not last very long.
Outside of Jerusalem and Judea the picture was different. At the preaching of Paul there was often bitter dispute in the synagogues. They came to be known simply as "synagogues of the Jews."
I think it's safe to say that there was an adaptation of the synagogue model to organize the early church, but without the overtly Jewish undercurrents.
The dividing point, and the reason there was a distinction in most Gentile cities between the Christian home fellowships and the "synagogues of the Jews" wasn't the issue of the Messiah, but the issue of worshipping with the Gentiles.
The other issue that divided the two were the two failed revolts of 70 AD and 135 AD. In the first, the Christians remembered Christ's warning and left Jerusalem--which you can imagine didn't exactly go over well with their non-Messianic kinsmen. It may have been in response to this that the "Benediction Against the Schismatics" was inserted into the synagogue prayers in about 90 AD, furthering the divide. The Jewish Christian refusal to follow Simon Bar-Kochba in 135 AD, when the Jews were forcibly dispersed from Palestine, just capped off relations between the two groups. There was fault on both sides; the Chrisitans, predominantly Gentile by this time, started eschewing all things Jewish in no small part because the Jews had become so politically incorrect to the Romans.
By the time of Justin Martyr, we see a curious reversal of the situation of Acts 15. Whereas the original quesiton was whether the Gentiles could receive the Messiah without becoming Jewish, the Gentile presence had grown so large that the question became reversed: How Jewish can a person be (in terms of their culture and following the Torah) and still be considered Christian? Justin Martyr barely tolerates them. Others, like the Council of Laodicea (at about the same time, I believe), condemned anyone who, for example, continued to worship on Shabbat and keep the Torah. By the time of the Roman Empire's split, Jewish converts were required to take an oath denouncing anything the least bit Jewish in their culture.
Nevertheless, before all that happened, the first non-synagogue churches were built around the synagogue structure, and remnants of that structure continued well into the second century. As Rokke noted, that would be only natural, given the cultural background of the Apostles. It was only later that the structure shifted from that to a hierarchal structure with the local bishop or pastor at the top of the pyramid.
Unfortunately not, but with some work I might be able to work up one.
Originally, they were based on tradition. There's no passage in the Tanakh that describes just how a synagogue should be organized. However, one could make the case that these traditions became enshrined in Scripture by the New Testament's use of them.
I would really appreciate it.
Also, since my seminary background included greek but not hebrew, can I assume that the words (for various offices & functions) are anglicized in terms of pronuciation as well as spelling?
And what does each mean literally?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.